Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post


    As for your characterisation of my argument that Phillips worked his hand "between her skin and her clothes around to her back opposite where the remaining intestines would have been had they not fallen out" you might want to read what I've said more closely. I'm not now suggesting he did that. I'm suggesting he felt for warmth in her rectum, just like he would have done with a thermometer if he had one, and, in terms of sticking a finger up there, just like he would have no doubt been very experienced in doing with his living patients if he needed to check any medical issues they had in that area.

    Unless you can tell that this is not possible and that you cannot possibly be wrong in your own interpretation whereby Dr Phillips apparently decided not to check the actual warmth of the intestines, or of the kidneys or the liver, when he plunged his hand into the gaping wound in Chapman's body, then I think you should admit, in fairness, that it might have happened.
    Sorry Herlock, it never happened. Sticking a finger up someone’s bottom bears no relation to feeling a dead body for warmth in the abdominal cavity.
    I get the impression that it’s a sort of idea that’s come to you in the course of all this back and forth, so kudos for putting it out there for people to respond to. But no. (butt no)
    Last edited by Kattrup; 08-29-2022, 03:13 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      "Francis E. Camps stated that.Ordinarily the rigor mortis appears between 2-4 hours, but sometimes it is seen within 30 minutes of death and sometimes the onset is delayed for 6 hours or more."

      "Bernard Knight described the method of testing the rigor mortis by attempting to flex or extend the joints though the whole muscle mass itself becomes hard, and finger pressure on quadriceps or pectoralis can also detect the changes. The stiffness may develop within half an hour of death or may be postponed indefinitely."

      “Werner Uri Spitz (1993), a German-American forensic pathologist, "reported that in temperate climate, under average condition, rigor becomes apparent within half an hour to an hour, increases progressively to a maximum within twelve hours, remains for about twelve hours and then progressively disappears within the following twelve hours."

      “From the English physiologist Sir Andrew Fielding Huxley (1974), who lived and worked in a temperate climate, we get this: 'the rigor mortis, which is cadaveric rigidity, starts developing within 1 to 2 hours after death and takes around 12 hours after death for complete development.'”

      “Furthermore, according to K.S. Narayan Reddy, author of 'Essentials of Forensic Medicine', "In death from diseases causing great exhaustion and wasting e.g. cholera, typhoid, tuberculosis and cancer and in violent deaths as by cut throats, firearms or electrocution, the onset of rigor is early and duration is short".The paper alsostates that,according to W.G. Aitcheson Robertson, author of 'Aids to Forensic Medicine and Toxicology', in "death followed by convulsions, muscular exertion, racing, the rigor mortis will appear earlier". We are told thatMason JK stated "The onset of rigor will be accelerated in conditions involving high ante-mortem muscle lactic acid e.g. after a struggle or other exercise.". So a struggle could bring on rigor earlier than the average, just like a cut throat. Then what about the physical condition of the deceased? Well according to S.C. Basu, author of the Handbook of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, rigor is "hastened or accelerated in feeble, fatigued and exhausted muscles"

      “Simpson's Forensic Medicine, updated 13th edition by Jason Payne James, Richard Jones, Steven Karch and John Manlove (2011):

      "The only use of assessing the presence or absence of rigor lies in the estimation of the time of death, and the key word here is estimation, as rigor is such a variable process that it can never provide an accurate assessment of the time of death. Extreme caution should be exercised in trying to assign a time of death based on the very subjective assessment of the degree and extent of rigor."


      How much more evidence is required on the unreliability of Rigor Mortis?
      I have said this before that although a doctor at a modern day crime scene will stiil be asked to give an estimated TOD and that for obvious reason, when asked they dont say sorry I cant do that because its not allowed or frowned upon, from a police perspective trying to find an estimated TOD in very important in the early stages of a murder investigation and so they will give a time window based on their first examination of the body, which Phillips appears to have done, He uses the term "I should say at least two hours, and "probably more" So it is right to accept that 2 hours was the earliest TOD and that could have been even longer. He doesnt say 2 hours or less and even mentioning that the cooling of the body he is not suggesting that his estimated TOD is wrong in effect he is stating that it simply a cold morning, no where does he infer that his estimated TOD could be wrong based on that cold morning he describes.

      I think it has to be accepted that an estimated TOD and its accuracy are determined by many differenet factors, and that no two bodies will react in the same way after death which will depend on again many different factors, It is easy for us today to quote modern day experts and percetages etc to try to determine an accurate TOD in this case, but again all of these are simply that because as stated no two bodies will react the same after death

      I fail to see why determening an accurate TOD in this murder is so important we know that she was killed by the same killer as all the other victims and I dont see anyone questioning their TOD and the doctors who attended those crime scenes and who gave estimated TOD have not been called to task over them, so why this one?

      I guess its because of the unsafe witness testimony that some seek to rely on but at this stage does it matter in the grand scheme of things who was telling the truth or who was mistaken, is it going to change what we alreday know about this murder, no its not, so why are you making such a big play over
      another murder in this series to the others that are documented, and what you seek to establish i.e a TOD is not going to effect what is alreday known about this murder. So why do you continue with this persistent arguing over this issue.



      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        I have said this before that although a doctor at a modern day crime scene will stiil be asked to give an estimated TOD and that for obvious reason, when asked they dont say sorry I cant do that because its not allowed or frowned upon, from a police perspective trying to find an estimated TOD in very important in the early stages of a murder investigation and so they will give a time window based on their first examination of the body, which Phillips appears to have done.
        Which is exactly right. Whatever conclusions are drawn from the Annie Chapman case, estimating TOD is undertaken the world over in order to solve crime. This in itself tells us there is value placed upon that estimate and it is not a waste of time.

        Dr Phillips understood the pitfalls. He tells us that when he observed a body with a much longer PMI, Mary, and gave us between 2am and 8am.

        Which makes it all the more telling that in relation to Annie he stated: "at least two hours" upon viewing that body with a much shorter PMI, which in the English language means the least time possible. That's pretty unequivocal while accounting for the pitfalls.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

          Sorry Herlock, it never happened. Sticking a finger up someone’s bottom bears no relation to feeling a dead body for warmth in the abdominal cavity.
          I get the impression that it’s a sort of idea that’s come to you in the course of all this back and forth, so kudos for putting it out there for people to respond to. But no. (butt no)

          Yes, you are absolutely right Kattrup that this thought recently occurred to me. But that's only because I cannot understand for the life of me why Dr Phillips referred in his evidence to heat "under" the intestines. Why didn't he report to the coroner the heat OF the intestines? I cannot accept that, having determinedly plunged his hands through the bloody and shitty opening of Chapman's mutilated stomach, he didn't feel if the intestines were warm (nor the kidneys or liver which would also have been accessible) but instead, merely felt the floor of the abdominal cavity for residual heat (as George has told me in #2397).

          Also, I have to point out that your own argument is circular. You say:

          Sticking a finger up one’s bottom bears no relation to feeling a dead body for warmth in the abdominal cavity.

          But the whole point is that there is no evidence that Dr Phillips felt for warmth in the abdominal cavity. He never said he did. It's the very thing we're trying to establish!

          You do accept though, do you, that sticking a thermometer up one's bottom is the established way of testing the warmth at the core of a dead body?

          Are you aware of any other cases where a medical examiner has felt a dead body for warmth in the abdominal cavity at a crime scene?

          If not, I assume you are saying that Dr Phillips improvised. I'm also suggesting he might have improvised.

          I'm not saying I know it for sure, only that it does explain the strange use of the word "under".

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            I have said this before that although a doctor at a modern day crime scene will stiil be asked to give an estimated TOD and that for obvious reason, when asked they dont say sorry I cant do that because its not allowed or frowned upon, from a police perspective trying to find an estimated TOD in very important in the early stages of a murder investigation and so they will give a time window based on their first examination of the body, which Phillips appears to have done, He uses the term "I should say at least two hours, and "probably more" So it is right to accept that 2 hours was the earliest TOD and that could have been even longer. He doesnt say 2 hours or less and even mentioning that the cooling of the body he is not suggesting that his estimated TOD is wrong in effect he is stating that it simply a cold morning, no where does he infer that his estimated TOD could be wrong based on that cold morning he describes.

            I think it has to be accepted that an estimated TOD and its accuracy are determined by many differenet factors, and that no two bodies will react in the same way after death which will depend on again many different factors, It is easy for us today to quote modern day experts and percetages etc to try to determine an accurate TOD in this case, but again all of these are simply that because as stated no two bodies will react the same after death

            I fail to see why determening an accurate TOD in this murder is so important we know that she was killed by the same killer as all the other victims and I dont see anyone questioning their TOD and the doctors who attended those crime scenes and who gave estimated TOD have not been called to task over them, so why this one?

            I guess its because of the unsafe witness testimony that some seek to rely on but at this stage does it matter in the grand scheme of things who was telling the truth or who was mistaken, is it going to change what we alreday know about this murder, no its not, so why are you making such a big play over
            another murder in this series to the others that are documented, and what you seek to establish i.e a TOD is not going to effect what is alreday known about this murder. So why do you continue with this persistent arguing over this issue.


            I persist Trevor because the truth is important although clearly not to you and a couple of other posters that I could name. This isn’t a question of opinion. It’s nothing to do with what I think or what you think or Fishy thinks or what any of us ‘thinks.’ It’s simply an absolutely unequivocally established concrete fact the TOD estimate that Phillips gave was unreliable. So all of your pointless, fact-twisting, agenda-driven “yes but’s” or “what if’s” are pointless!

            A Doctor giving a TOD estimate was doing little more that guessing. Every single expert in the world without exception tells us this. Every single textbook on the subject emphasises this. Every single paper, treatise, essay and chapter tells us this so ffs sake Trevor will you and your fellow fantasists just STOP trying to endow a Victorian Doctor with medical skills which Doctors 130 years later didn’t possess!!! Just accept this FACT.!!!

            So Phillips might have got it right (as any estimate can be potentially correct) and he could have got it wrong. We can advance no further either way.

            So as I said days and days ago - Phillips TOD gets us no further in this debate. It’s only used by people like yourself and couple of others who are hell bent on discrediting witnesses and who will embarrass themselves and this subject in any way imaginable just to try and prove it. So grow up, read what the evidence tell us in black and white and in English, lose the blatant bias and you might get somewhere.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

              Which is exactly right. Whatever conclusions are drawn from the Annie Chapman case, estimating TOD is undertaken the world over in order to solve crime. This in itself tells us there is value placed upon that estimate and it is not a waste of time.

              Dr Phillips understood the pitfalls. He tells us that when he observed a body with a much longer PMI, Mary, and gave us between 2am and 8am.

              Which makes it all the more telling that in relation to Annie he stated: "at least two hours" upon viewing that body with a much shorter PMI, which in the English language means the least time possible. That's pretty unequivocal while accounting for the pitfalls.
              Desperate waffle.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                Also, I have to point out that your own argument is circular. You say:

                Sticking a finger up one’s bottom bears no relation to feeling a dead body for warmth in the abdominal cavity.

                But the whole point is that there is no evidence that Dr Phillips felt for warmth in the abdominal cavity. He never said he did. It's the very thing we're trying to establish!
                Au contraire, there is evidence. Philips stated there was a little remaining heat under the intestines.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
                  Au contraire, there is evidence. Philips stated there was a little remaining heat under the intestines.
                  That's not correct actually, Kattrup. I set out the five versions of Phillips' reported evidence in #2215 and he never used the word "little". Some have him saying "a certain amount of heat" others "a certain remaining heat".

                  But I don't understand how Phillips saying there was heat "under" the intestines resolves the discussion between us because that's the very thing I'm questioning as to what it means.

                  What I'm saying is that the rectum and anus can legitimately be said to be under the intestines, and that Dr Phillips might have expressed himself in that way to avoid having to state at a public inquest that he stuck his finger up Annie's anus.

                  He certainly did not say "I felt for warmth in the abdominal cavity". I wonder why not. Why say, instead, that he felt heat under the intestines if what he actually felt was warmth at the floor of the abdominal cavity. Why even mention the intestines? I'm not convinced that I've yet received a satisfactory answer to this question.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    That's not correct actually, Kattrup. I set out the five versions of Phillips' reported evidence in #2215 and he never used the word "little". Some have him saying "a certain amount of heat" others "a certain remaining heat".

                    But I don't understand how Phillips saying there was heat "under" the intestines resolves the discussion between us because that's the very thing I'm questioning as to what it means.

                    What I'm saying is that the rectum and anus can legitimately be said to be under the intestines, and that Dr Phillips might have expressed himself in that way to avoid having to state at a public inquest that he stuck his finger up Annie's anus.

                    He certainly did not say "I felt for warmth in the abdominal cavity". I wonder why not. Why say, instead, that he felt heat under the intestines if what he actually felt was warmth at the floor of the abdominal cavity. Why even mention the intestines? I'm not convinced that I've yet received a satisfactory answer to this question.
                    Sorry Herlock, but I don’t agree with your argument at all. There’s a 0% chance, rounded up, of Philips behaving that way.
                    It makes no sense. Using a rectal thermometer was a way of measuring core body temperature on LIVE patients. Why would a 19th century doctor put his finger in a dead body’s anus at a crime scene?? It makes no sense, sorry

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

                      Sorry Herlock, but I don’t agree with your argument at all. There’s a 0% chance, rounded up, of Philips behaving that way.
                      It makes no sense. Using a rectal thermometer was a way of measuring core body temperature on LIVE patients. Why would a 19th century doctor put his finger in a dead body’s anus at a crime scene?? It makes no sense, sorry
                      To see if he could detect warmth under the intestines, thus avoiding having to stick his hand into her guts.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        To see if he could detect warmth under the intestines, thus avoiding having to stick his hand into her guts.
                        Yes, well. It’s certainly an idea. I guess logically one would then assume that doctors without a thermometer would regularly stick their fingers up their patients’ bums
                        Sorry. Calling the notion outrageously far fetched is lending it too much credence.

                        Maybe you could do a poll on it? “When Philips said there was warmth remaining under the intestines, did he mean A) he’d felt the body including the intestines for heat, or B) he’d used his finger as a thermometer (because why not?) and stuck it up the body’s anus?”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

                          Yes, well. It’s certainly an idea. I guess logically one would then assume that doctors without a thermometer would regularly stick their fingers up their patients’ bums
                          Sorry. Calling the notion outrageously far fetched is lending it too much credence.

                          Maybe you could do a poll on it? “When Philips said there was warmth remaining under the intestines, did he mean A) he’d felt the body including the intestines for heat, or B) he’d used his finger as a thermometer (because why not?) and stuck it up the body’s anus?”
                          But Kattrup, on your argument that's like saying that logically every time a doctor without a thermometer came across a mutilated body at a crime scene he would stick his hand inside it.

                          Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, how do we know? There is literally no evidence from any other case about this.

                          But I don't accept that we have to assume everyone else did it. Perhaps using a finger to test for warmth was something idiosyncratic that only Dr Phillips did at a crime scene. Just like he was the only (known) person to stick his hand inside a dead body at a crime scene.

                          I appreciate that anyone with a longstanding belief about the evidence in the case will resist a new theory but, while you are perfectly entitled to disagree with it, I don't think you can disregard it entirely in the way you have been. It's not entirely beyond the bounds of possibility and, like I said, it explains the strange use of the word "under" which you've avoided mentioning in your posts.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            But Kattrup, on your argument that's like saying that logically every time a doctor without a thermometer came across a mutilated body at a crime scene he would stick his hand inside it.

                            Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, how do we know? There is literally no evidence from any other case about this.

                            But I don't accept that we have to assume everyone else did it. Perhaps using a finger to test for warmth was something idiosyncratic that only Dr Phillips did at a crime scene. Just like he was the only (known) person to stick his hand inside a dead body at a crime scene.

                            I appreciate that anyone with a longstanding belief about the evidence in the case will resist a new theory but, while you are perfectly entitled to disagree with it, I don't think you can disregard it entirely in the way you have been. It's not entirely beyond the bounds of possibility and, like I said, it explains the strange use of the word "under" which you've avoided mentioning in your posts.
                            Okay. Logically, I would have no problem with doctors called to ascertain the time of death of a disembowelled corpse would examine the body to determine roughly the temperature internally and externally.

                            Now, "everyone else" did not have opportunity to do so, because murders of the type of JtR were thankfully very rare. The word "under" is not strangely used at all and I've not avoided mentioning it.
                            There's nothing remarkable about Philips' comment. He examined the body, felt it for warmth, poked and prodded it in order to have some idea of the time of death. This included sliding his hands inside the wound, which is what he describes.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

                              Okay. Logically, I would have no problem with doctors called to ascertain the time of death of a disembowelled corpse would examine the body to determine roughly the temperature internally and externally.

                              Now, "everyone else" did not have opportunity to do so, because murders of the type of JtR were thankfully very rare. The word "under" is not strangely used at all and I've not avoided mentioning it.
                              There's nothing remarkable about Philips' comment. He examined the body, felt it for warmth, poked and prodded it in order to have some idea of the time of death. This included sliding his hands inside the wound, which is what he describes.
                              Well now, come on, in fairness to me, he doesn't describe anything of the sort! He doesn't actually describe what he did, either when feeling that the surface of the body was cold or when feeling the area "under" the intestines (which, like George, I assume you think by that he meant the floor of abdominal cavity?).

                              Kattrup, here's one thing that I'm prepared to accept about the doctor's use of the word "under" which certainly is strange considering he had at least two other words, "in" and "on", available to him to describe the heat of the intestines.

                              What if the intestines that he was talking about were actually exposed. Not the ones over the shoulder but the ones remaining in the body, but now uncovered and exposed to the elements.

                              Perhaps those intestines, because they were essentially in the open, were cold, with no heat. Perhaps what he meant is that he quickly slipped his hand - not in the wound so much - but under the exposed intestines and felt some heat under those cold intestines.

                              That, in my opinion, would have told him nothing about the time of death because there never have been studies about the temperature in the core after death when the core is exposed to cold air.

                              But it would explain why he didn't report any heat in the intestines themselves. There just wasn't any.

                              What do you think? Possible or not?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                I persist Trevor because the truth is important although clearly not to you and a couple of other posters that I could name. This isn’t a question of opinion. It’s nothing to do with what I think or what you think or Fishy thinks or what any of us ‘thinks.’ It’s simply an absolutely unequivocally established concrete fact the TOD estimate that Phillips gave was unreliable. So all of your pointless, fact-twisting, agenda-driven “yes but’s” or “what if’s” are pointless!

                                A Doctor giving a TOD estimate was doing little more that guessing. Every single expert in the world without exception tells us this. Every single textbook on the subject emphasises this. Every single paper, treatise, essay and chapter tells us this so ffs sake Trevor will you and your fellow fantasists just STOP trying to endow a Victorian Doctor with medical skills which Doctors 130 years later didn’t possess!!! Just accept this FACT.!!!

                                So Phillips might have got it right (as any estimate can be potentially correct) and he could have got it wrong. We can advance no further either way.

                                So as I said days and days ago - Phillips TOD gets us no further in this debate. It’s only used by people like yourself and couple of others who are hell bent on discrediting witnesses and who will embarrass themselves and this subject in any way imaginable just to try and prove it. So grow up, read what the evidence tell us in black and white and in English, lose the blatant bias and you might get somewhere.
                                But you are deliberatley ignoring the context of what he stated "He uses the term "I should say at least two hours, and "probably more" So it is right to accept that baased on that 2 hours was the earliest TOD and that could have been even longer. He doesnt say 2 hours or less and even mentioning that the cooling of the body he is not suggesting that his estimated TOD is wrong in effect he is stating that it simply a cold morning, no where does he infer that his estimated TOD could be wrong based on that cold morning he describes.

                                The witness testimony of Long and Cadosh is unsafe to totally rely om

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 08-29-2022, 10:02 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X